Update: The Newsplex did a nice story on proposed new development One clarification: the new development could help or hurt the Crozet community. My greatest personal concern is that the new development seems to have its sole access via Park Road. Go to the end of this post for an excerpt from a relevant discussion in 2006.
The question is … will the Eastern Avenue be part of this process? (I think it should be)
145 more homes could be coming to the area between Western Ridge and Foxchase and Westhall. This sort of development has wide-ranging ramifications and potential impacts:
– school populations and balancing
– loss of natural landscape (which all new neighborhoods tend to do)
– infrastructure – will there be any improvements? i.e. – roads, bicycle paths, connectivity?
– more housing inventory which could be a good thing, depending on what houses will be built (remember, I’m a Realtor)
– more traffic on 240
See the location of the proposed Westlake neighborhood on Bing.
Update: Laurie Shannon has an excellent comment on RealCrozetVA’s Facebook page: (bolding mine)
Seems a bit of a squeeze. I cannot imagine that many more houses coming out through existing neighborhoods would be a good, safe, or appealing reality. If the entire landmass that is Crozet becomes residential homes then the things that attract people to Crozet – keeping land/home prices so stable – will be gone and people will no longer desire – and pay – to live here. The view of the mountains, the expanses of open land – already depleted – and the country – not full on suburb – are very fragile and once gone cannot be brought back.
If you’re interested, go to Albemarle’s GIS site and search for these Parcel IDs – 05600-00-00-095A0 and 05600-00-00-095A0 and 05600-00-00-095a0
Oddly, there are no results for Westlake on the County’s site.
This is from 2006 … thank you Charlottesville Tomorrow.:
Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) indicated he would no longer vote in favor of any rezonings that did not adequately contribute to transportation and other infrastructure needs. He cited what he saw as two problems with Westhall: 1) the number of units being approved in Crozet now already exceeds what the Master Plan intended for the first twenty years; and 2) that County does not have funding for transportation infrastructure (e.g. Jarmans Gap Road) because of the inadequacy of state funding. He also suggested a new approach on future proffers which might be based on the number of vehicle trips per day anticipated to come to and from the development. He suggested a $1,000 per vehicle trip generated per day proffer. For Westhall at about 8,000 vehicle trips per day that would be $8,000 per unit in one-time voluntary proffers from the developer that could be applied to transportation projects.
Some Supervisors, including David Slutzky (Rio) and Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) expressed their discomfort discussing changing overall proffer expectations at the time of a vote on a specific rezoning request. Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) shared her view that an up or down vote on this rezoning request was not a black and white issue with respect to the County’s proffer policies. Ms. Thomas shared her concern that increased monetary proffers in the designated growth areas might push development to the rural areas and might result in by-right development in Crozet that won’t be in accord with the community’s goals in the master plan.
David Wyant (White Hall) indicated he could not vote for approval of Westhall until there was a clear commitment from an adjoining property owner to fund the construction of Eastern Avenue, a connector road described in the Crozet Master Plan that would interconnect this neighborhood to Routes 240 and 250. He indicated to his colleagues that he is attempting to broker such a deal and expects a decision from the developer any day. Eastern Avenue is currently estimated to be an $8 million road project including a bridge over Lickinghole Creek.
Ken Boyd (Rio) indicated he shared the concerns expressed by Mr. Rooker and Mr. Wyant and that he could not support the project. He said this went against what he normally believes with respect to controlling development, but that he said the issue had to be settled somewhere along the line, and that while he felt bad about doing it here, a “line in the sand” had to be drawn and a new message sent to the development community.
During the discussion, Supervisors Boyd, Thomas, and Dorrier all seemed to change their minds on the project and they joined Rooker and Wyant in voting in favor of a deferral so the applicant can have the opportunity to come back with revised proffers and to allow the Board to receive additional information on the County’s ability to pay for new infrastructure.